Slashdot Mirror
N.Y. County Mandates Wireless Security
Mynister writes "CNN has an article about Westchester County NY forcing small business to use basic security on their wireless networks. From the article "The law also requires that businesses offering Internet access -- coffeehouses and hotels, for example -- post signs warning that users should have firewalls or other security measures.""
From the article:
The law requires each business to install a firewall or change the default SSID, the name that identifies a wireless network, if the personal information stored has not already been encrypted.
Umm...changing the SSID does nothing, in terms of security. If that's all that's required to satisfy this new law, I'm amazed.
I don't think they want to enforce it.
They're just making this law so that the courts can blame someone in case of damages
It can't be hard to do and with the appropriate marketing might shift a few more devices.
Next step is to draft and enact a law making it a criminal offence not to lock your door. Won't take long 'till the whole family is gathered, together again, in prison/workcamp. It'll be fun!
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
After reading the article, this line is of interest:
"The law requires each business to install a firewall or change the default SSID, the name that identifies a wireless network, if the personal information stored has not already been encrypted. Penalties would range from a warning on first offense to a $500 fine on third offense."
How would any of this help with the security of a wireless network. I did not see anything regarding the use of encryption - unless I missed it.
IMO if someone goes around turning people in for stupid things they are total scum of the earth. Maybe instead of looking at other peoples faults they should look at their own.
The trouble is, a "stupid thing" to one person (usually the person doing the activity, oddly enough) is a major annoyance to another, and/or in some cases, against the law - noise issues are a good example.
I'm sure the pothead I used to live under a couple years ago thought I was "total scum of the earth" after I called the police on his numerous violations of a town noise ordinance, and eventually got him evicted.
People think the laws against silly things like noise pollution, parking in fire lanes, etc. are optional, but hey...Not liking a law doesn't excuse you from following it.
Nicely put. And in the example given up-thread, we're talking about jerks who were parked in places they shouldn't have been, spots that were presumably necessary for the orderly flow of a [mostly] government agency - our government agency. We'd probably be irritated if the government spent money adding a salaried employee whose only job was to check that parking laws around post offices were being followed, but we should be happy when someone is willing to take a little unpaid time to help fix things that need fixing.
One wonders if the GP feels that neighborhood watch groups are the "scum of the earth" because they're trying to keep their houses, and those of their neighbors, safe.
Just last night, there was a party across the street that started going wrong (a lot of people - more than 20 - screaming at each other outside). It was only about 10:00 at night on a Saturday but should I have felt bad because I called 9-1-1 to inform them that something very loud and concerning was going on in my neighborhood, even though I wasn't sure that any laws were being broken? Maybe I should have also felt bad that I called the police on my next-door neighbors when they were screaming and breaking things. Personally, I don't think so. I prefer to think that I might have averted something much worse by getting Portland's Finest out to check out what was going on. Or, maybe, I'm the "scum of the earth" because I'm getting involved in someone else's business...